Study: Liberals, atheists, have higher IQs

[DMC]

ok

[DMC]

another problem is how different people will define atheism differently. some people define atheism as a claim that god does not exist, while theism is the claim that god does exist. while the theism definition is rarely really disputed, i consider atheism to be the lack of a claim altogether. to me its foolish for somebody to make a claim that "god does not exist." that's like saying "aliens don't exist." you can't really know that, and its almost never considered to be scientific to claim a negative.

I simply say there's no reason for me to believe a god exists or entertain the notion without evidence to support the claim. It's an interesting discussion because our society is based on the dichotomy of god/no god and people seem to think that atheists should not even discuss the concept at all. We probably wouldn't discuss it if it was a foreign concept, but since it's in our faces on a daily basis we discuss it. Oddly enough, atheists are often more educated regarding the Bible than the theist they are discussing it with. Not always the case, but most often. I think that's because you are theist as a child, you even believe in Santa Claus because you are given evidence and told it's real by people you consider to be all knowing en ies who wouldn't lie to you. As you age, you start to see dishonesty and agenda in what people tell you and you start researching things for yourself. If you stick with theism because you're comfortable with it, it's possible you never do any research deeper than what the Bible itself has to offer and even then you take the pastor's exegesis as fact.

[spurraider21]

I simply say there's no reason for me to believe a god exists or entertain the notion without evidence to support the claim. It's an interesting discussion because our society is based on the dichotomy of god/no god and people seem to think that atheists should not even discuss the concept at all. We probably wouldn't discuss it if it was a foreign concept, but since it's in our faces on a daily basis we discuss it. Oddly enough, atheists are often more educated regarding the Bible than the theist they are discussing it with. Not always the case, but most often. I think that's because you are theist as a child, you even believe in Santa Claus because you are given evidence and told it's real by people you consider to be all knowing en ies who wouldn't lie to you. As you age, you start to see dishonesty and agenda in what people tell you and you start researching things for yourself. If you stick with theism because you're comfortable with it, it's possible you never do any research deeper than what the Bible itself has to offer and even then you take the pastor's exegesis as fact.

yeah that's something i've felt as well. of course i'm speaking in generality, i'm sure there are plenty of theists who have studied the bible more than i have ...

but when it comes to the laypeople, i think its important to note that most atheists were raised theist, especially here in the states. so it's not like atheists are some outsiders who know nothing about religion and are just bashing on it, as opposed to people that don't grasp elementary physics yet attempt to refute the big bang theory. heck, i think i started turning towards atheism AS i learned more about the bible. the more i learned about it, the less sense it made

[Chinook]

ok

Mis-click. Fixed now.

[Chinook]

another problem is how different people will define atheism differently. some people define atheism as a claim that god does not exist, while theism is the claim that god does exist. while the theism definition is rarely really disputed, i consider atheism to be the lack of a claim altogether. to me its foolish for somebody to make a claim that "god does not exist." that's like saying "aliens don't exist." you can't really know that, and its almost never considered to be scientific to claim a negative.

In terms of argument, atheism is a negative concept. It's really hard and almost pointless to attack a negative, since it has almost infinite ground. So people try to make atheism a positive concept so it's easier to refute. I think most of us would have no problem tearing a person down who tried to claim that god does not exist. But if someone simply says they see no reason to accept that God does exist, there isn't much anyone can do but repeat why they think he does and be open to critique.

Fuzz for example is still trying to claim that he's not atheist, even though he's adamantly not a theist, according to his replies.

[spurraider21]

In terms of argument, atheism is a negative concept. It's really hard and almost pointless to attack a negative, since it has almost infinite ground. So people try to make atheism a positive concept so it's easier to refute. I think most of us would have no problem tearing a person down who tried to claim that god does not exist. But if someone simply says they see no reason to accept that God does exist, there isn't much anyone can do but repeat why they think he does and be open to critique.

Fuzz for example is still trying to claim that he's not atheist, even though he's adamantly not a theist, according to his replies.

i think you are lumping atheists and an heists together. i would maintain that they hold different positions

[Chinook]

i think you are lumping atheists and an heists together. i would maintain that they hold different positions

Sure. But I was just theorizing about why people would claim atheists are arguing there is definitely no god.

You can't really attack atheism based on its own merits. You can only defend theism. An heism can be attacked on its own merits, which is why people project it onto atheists.

[spurraider21]

Sure. But I was just theorizing about why people would claim atheists are arguing there is definitely no god.

because its always easier to argue when you distort the other side's disposition

[DMC]

I've never argued that I was a proposition I'd take. I argued that the wager was a reasonable argument.

Actually what you said was this:

"Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done."

So you moved the goalposts from "decent argument" to "rational".

No. I don't feel so. Some do, though.

How does that matter?

No, I didn't exclude athesim. In that case, no one wins. But that wager is set up when you don't know who's right, so you get contingent benefits. Atheism will have a benefit of zero no matter what's true (unless it's the non-religious heaven that welcomes atheism like we talked about). All things equal, there's never a benefit to being atheist (as far as the wager goes specifically).

Why do you keep using "all things being equal"? If all things are equal, there's no reason to wager. What you're doing is rationalizing Pascal's mindset when he made the wager. I don't think anyone disputes that. The wager itself is folly.

That would be weird. I guess it could be like some alien race has been watching humans and saves the brainwaves of those who were atheistic? Even so, such a scenario is just as plausible for every belief system, so as I said the benefit would distribute across the whole board. Atheists would no longer be at zero, but they would still be behind each religion.

It doesn't matter how. The point is these are all unknowns, and you're asked to choose the one with the biggest chance for reward while considering you lose nothing by leaving the other. How would atheists be behind each religion if they also have a heaven waiting for them in the afterlife?

We can agree to disagree on the dichotomy thing. As far as the benefit, that is and always has been subjective. I don't think it's beneficial, and you don't seem to. But others can if they place so much potential utility in being religious that it overrides their projected utility of being non-religious.

So now the wager is subjective to the individual? The wager should only take into account the choices, not the individual.

As far as the whole condescending thing, I don't think that was Pascal's intention. He seemed to have been fine with atheists who were critical thinkers and didn't like anyone who made blanket statements about metaphysics with no room for change. It seems like the wager is meant to be an element that an individual considers when deciding their belief system or lack of one; it doesn't have to try to stand as the determining factor.

You've missed the boat on almost every religion I've studied if you think weighing the benefits can come into the picture.

[Blake]

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

no way. Pascal's wager fails miserably any number of different ways.

[Chinook]

Actually what you said was this:

"Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done."

So you moved the goalposts from "decent argument" to "rational".

I was originally going to use "logical" instead of rational, but I wanted to avoid opening up that can of worms. I was going to say that because you were saying "Pascal's Wager" as if it were the gambler's fallacy. The wager itself is still a decent argument; it's not a fallacy. So automatically labeling an argument "Pascal's Wager" doesn't delegitimize it.

How does that matter?

Because the wager is subjective. It's supposed to be for everyone to decide upon. Just because I don't think it's worth it to hop on any old religion doesn't mean someone else doesn't.

Why do you keep using "all things being equal"? If all things are equal, there's no reason to wager. What you're doing is rationalizing Pascal's mindset when he made the wager. I don't think anyone disputes that. The wager itself is folly.

I mean that if it there weren't present benefits and detriments to picking a religion or picking no religion. If the only thing that had any sort of utility was going to heaven or going to . In such a case, it's simple math, and it makes no sense to be atheist/non-religious. But because all things aren't equal, it makes the math a whole lot more complicated.

It doesn't matter how. The point is these are all unknowns, and you're asked to choose the one with the biggest chance for reward while considering you lose nothing by leaving the other. How would atheists be behind each religion if they also have a heaven waiting for them in the afterlife?

Because they have fewer chances to win. For every scenario in which atheists would be saved, a similar scenario can be made for ANY belief system. But religions would still have the benefit of being saved if their beliefs end up being true. Atheists/non-religious people don't get that benefit, because if there is indeed no afterlife, then they don't win just like everyone else. So if you were to do the probabilities, atheists would be behind every religion by at least one scenario.

So now the wager is subjective to the individual? The wager should only take into account the choices, not the individual.

Um, the wager has always been up to the individual. It's up to them to pick a side.

You've missed the boat on almost every religion I've studied if you think weighing the benefits can come into the picture.

I'm not going to claim to have studied a whole bunch of religions, but Pascal was clearly weighing benefits while being religious. As I said, he seemed to have been a fan of critical thinking more so than of faith. You seem to have the view that the two cannot exist together, but that's simply not a view many theists agree with.

[Blake]

Yes, get a ing life.

Only a loser takes the time out of their day to prepare for an internet argument.

.......

I post in the political forum to counter the spread of misinformation by white guilt people such as yourself.

So you're saying you take time out of your day to prepare for an internet argument in the political forum.

[Blake]

Pascal's wager is neither logical nor rational.

[Blake]

Pascal's wager is still a decent argument. It's been refuted, but not defeated. I don't follow it, but that isn't because it's poorly done.

no way. Pascal's wager fails miserably any number of different ways.

[Chinook]

no way. Pascal's wager fails miserably any number of different ways.

Two main ones, which DMC and I went over. It overstates the odds of salvation, but the math still holds. In game theory, even the tiniest difference in utility is enough to drive results toward one side.

That all said, I don't use it to defend my own theism. As far as the wager is concerned, I'm in the atheist camp, since I don't have a religion to cling to.

[Blake]

Nope. Based on the number of religions in the history of the world, the math horribly fails too.

Especially when you factor in the probability that christianity is just a rip off of other older religions.

[Chinook]

Nope. Based on the number of religions in the history of the world, the math horribly fails too.

Especially when you factor in the probability that christianity is just a rip off of other older religions.

Increasing the number of religions in the scenario doesn't destroy the math. It just muddies the water.

It's like if you were in a room with a bunch of doors, only one of which led to the freedom. The others led to death. Someone told you they were going to kill you if you didn't pick a door. In such a scenario, it each door has a slight chance to being the right one, but refusing to pick has no chance of success. No matter how many doors are in the room, it doesn't make sense to not pick one. (And yes, DMC, I didn't forget your objections. They don't change the logic of this scenario; they just change the math a bit more.)

Of course, I think all religions are wrong the same way you seem to. I don't think the slight chance of success is worth giving up science and liberties. I don't have any problem not picking a door, since staying in the room seems all right with me. But some people have different reasons for not wanting the stay in the room.

[Blake]

Increasing the number of religions in the scenario doesn't destroy the math. It just muddies the water.

It's like if you were in a room with a bunch of doors, only one of which led to the freedom.

the math fails because you can't give an exact number of doors to choose from. And some of the doors may not offer anything better than not choosing a room.

Pascal himself dismissed other religions and left christianity/catholicism as the only option.

[Chinook]

the math fails because you can't give an exact number of doors to choose from. And some of the doors may not offer anything better than not choosing a room.

The number of doors doesn't matter. It reduces the probability of picking the right door and thus the expected utility. But it doesn't make picking no door any wiser.

Pascal himself dismissed other religions and left christianity/catholicism as the only option.

It seems written at a time where most Western philosophers did that. I do think that the wager is not a viable argument to pick christianity over other religions. But it's still viable for picking christianity (or any religion) over non-religion. That's why the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations changes the math to where it weakens the probability of success but makes the wager generalizable.

Of course an elephant in the room is that not all religions require belief. In Buddhism, the soul is reincarnated whether it is Buddhist or not, for example. There's a different type of reward system altogether for those faiths than just a heaven for believers and for non-believers.

[Blake]

The number of doors doesn't matter. It reduces the probability of picking the right door and thus the expected utility. But it doesn't make picking no door any wiser.

If you're going to open it up to other religions, and you have to, then in a universe where the possibilities are infinite, the number of doors then becomes infinite.

And if there is exactly zero evidence of an afterlife behind those doors, then really, there is nothing to gain by picking one.

It seems written at a time where most Western philosophers did that. I do think that the wager is not a viable argument to pick christianity over other religions. But it's still viable for picking christianity (or any religion) over non-religion. That's why the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations changes the math to where it weakens the probability of success but makes the wager generalizable.

Of course an elephant in the room is that not all religions require belief. In Buddhism, the soul is reincarnated whether it is Buddhist or not, for example. There's a different type of reward system altogether for those faiths than just a heaven for believers and for non-believers.

So there's no need to go through the buddhist door, but Pascal states the buddhist needs to still pick the Christian door.

[Chinook]

If you're going to open it up to other religions, and you have to, then in a universe where the possibilities are infinite, the number of doors then becomes infinite.

Infinity is a strange concept. There are different ways people define it depending on context. In this case, I wouldn't say that there are infinite possibilities (at least in a non-trivial sense), just a really large number of them. The utility of going through an individual door approaches zero, but it can never reach it. So it will never be a viable decision to not open a door.

And if there is exactly zero evidence of an afterlife behind those doors, then really, there is nothing to gain by picking one.

If there were evidence of an afterlife, everything would be different, and not just in this wager. It's all based on the probability of an afterlife existing, which is really small but still existent.

So there's no need to go through the buddhist door, but Pascal states the buddhist needs to still pick the Christian door.

As I said, there is some utility for being Buddhist. Supposedly, the type of religiosity a soul has determines the incarnation the soul gets. But there's no dire harm to any individual incarnation for not believing. We could always be Buddhists next time, even if we are incarnated as roaches.

But I do think that there is a rather large number or religions that don't make believing their dogma a bigger deal than living a virtuous life. Those religions are pretty agnostic to the wager. Again, though, that just alters the quantification of the math; it doesn't disrupt the logic of it.

[Blake]

So it will never be a viable decision to not open a door.

that's assuming that there are only two options behind all the doors: Eternal reward or nothingness.

It's a false assumption.

[silverblk mystix]

love to watch blind people arguing over "sight"

[Blake]

love to watch blind people arguing over "sight"

That's not what's happening here, but keep pretending like you have the universe all figured out, Tino.

[Chinook]

that's assuming that there are only two options behind all the doors: Eternal reward or nothingness.

It's a false assumption.

How so? I could nit-pick at the way that's framed, but that's not what I'm trying to do by asking. I'm actually curious as to what other options you see as possibly being there.